About your Search

20130420
20130420
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14
why now? i want to share a few things. one is that once we start implementing the law and the mechanisms started falling in place and in the first year we got 1,000 cases nudged and then results. .. the mechanism is one thing. the greeting that oxygen, the way we can breed of the greeting as space for rigging a plan and not be bastrop away. women who complain, stigma and retaliation. that is the part that probably would need to focus on. the other thing i felt was that it was really a universal issue. i, during my struggle in the last ten years, have probably read about every sexual-harassment case. and every country, i went to japan a month ago and there it was everywhere in the public place and offices. so i felt like this is something that we really need to a not divide up the world, and this is the part where women have problems and this is a part of the world that has the outcome. we will need to develop a bond of solidarity. when need to talk about our struggles. countries like pakistan, one case of a gang rape or something happens and then it goes into the media
--from personal grievance to public law". the book describes what happened when 11 women joined the campaign to go into the un only to be attacked by there un managers. the case culminated in legislation by the pakistani parliament in 2000 that make sexual harassment crime. she is the chair person, and human rights and democracy streaming and research on news activism and environment. and based in washington d.c. at the national endowment for democracy. and over red light areas, released by oxford and forgotten cases. and in japanese have become popular among young pakistani women. and the doctorate working at the university of minnesota. please join in welcoming today's guest dr. fouzia saeed. [applause] >> very nice to be here and i look forward to the next hour of engagement with you. if you want to turn this off you can, at least up to the limit. i am going to tell you a story today and the stories in the context of pakistan, about one woman and also celebration of women in pakistan but it resonates universally, goes across borders. this is about a legislation we got in pakistan against sexual
to the logs and find out? to because they gather one. @booktv gather every one of the law books, all the organ's locks and everything to do with these are plants that night get shipped over to the command ship where there are meeting to cover up the story . they did away with it. that's why you haven't. and, in fact, to put the fear of god and the people who kept copies because they felt guilty, one of the chiefs actually kept a copy of what the fire that night, whenever. he would not turn it over because he still is so afraid of what might happen to him if he turns it over and if i were to get your someone were to get in and talk about it. as long as you d'tell anybody who they are taught all of this led turns out he was never notified. i went to see him. he was a reservist and. he lived in virginia. i drove out there to see him and talk to him and show them what i had. he slammed his fist down on the table and says, i have sas teams here and here and here. we put people in here. the helicopter ser. you know, so they could get to these guys of the went down because they expected a lot more of
federal laws about desecrating national parks. and something else which was startling to me at first. i did not know what the grapes for trying to tell me a first. and what i realized and will allow the people who come and go up to the top of cadillac mountain and look out over what is essentially a big spruce forest did not realize is that the grapes were there before the spruce forest. and if you go back to the history, you find that. by about the year 1880, more than half of the island had been deforested. and along the edges any place that could grow hay or any kind of crops in the short growing season was used to create food for draft animals and food for people. and i realized that there were some enormous changes in the land that had not really thought about. and then i happened to stumble upon william cronin's book by the same name, changes in the land. when i came back from asia in the 80's i went back to michigan, where i grew up. i -- having this in mind, i saw these enormous changes in the landscape or grow. it was full of small family flowers in those days but no in the 80'
of not enforcing the law against small transactions so you think about it being legal in the front door of a coffee shop. but it's still illegal to produce and to sell the marijuana to those coffee shops so it's actually illegal. so what that does is it in place the price. so where was passed in washington and colorado it would allow for-profit companies to come produce and it's very different. it's just very different from other terms that gets thrown around like decriminalization. a lot of people use legalization and decriminalization interchangeably in that's incorrect. that just means lowering the penalties for possession, taking it from being a misdemeanor to a citation. when people talk about decriminalization that has nothing to do with production and distribution. that is why legalization and what happened in colorado and washington is so significant. >> host: what does it cost government, the federal government to having marijuana be illegal, enforcement and incarceration? >> guest: that's a great question. i don't know what it is for the federal government at some of the research we did i
, led negotiations for the reimplication of east east germ. he is proficient in economics of law, a doctor of law, and he's written a number of books most recently "the future of modernization: what we can learn from the crisis," and, mr. minister, delighted you with are us, look forward to the remarks, and we'll then pepper you with questions. >> thank you very much. sorry for being late, tday,r thout and minds are on the people in boston. we hope it will be over soon. i have to make some remarks, and in europe, and what i wanted to say, we are the member -- [inaudible] we all know the summit in london , up to the meeting today, and we have made a lot of progress. we agree. [inaudible] too much in the european markets,. it is three main issues we are working on. i think in the open markets, we made last couple years, and that is not. in liberty, finance, and marks, we have a different opinion. aits issue as of late. we have to continue in this country. what we've done in europe, and bond markets, banking. [inaudible] financial markets and it is a very -- [inaudible] everyone at
. the first house vacant at the double what was a mother-in-law house. it was not inhabited. the person was away at the time and the flier mailed it. house was destroyed by the fire. and they got down to the compound, and began to do triage your getting things moved away from that blue house and the blue double wide so they wouldn't catch fire, putting a sprinkle on top of the house to give yourself a little edge. and this is what was coming. and one of the things that the captains, richard gerhart and freddie espinoza agreed upon is they would do a burnout. they would start a fire and run into the main fire. now, this is one of the most combustible places on the plan planet. and they couldn't get the backfire started. they hav had their trip george d they're trying to get it going. people see what was left of the original attempt at the backfire in just a second. but this caused some degree of anxiety. you have this thing pouring down on you and your want to run it by right into and if are you trying to start, and here's the guy trying to start it. isn't taking. it should just take off
the audience. please wait until you get a microphone before u.s. to because of laws we will pick you up on camera. u.s. a question? down here in front. you have to wait for the microphone. and copley's to do as a favor. not accusing you, don't make a speech. as the question. >> my question is whether their is a real parallel between the argument for abolishing slavery and the argument for abolishing war. >> sounds like that's yours. >> the question is, is there real parallel? i don't know. the point that i was trying to make was i think every generation does seven things and italy. we do things that make us more -- morally queasy, but we think we have to do them. i would say that for our generation as for pretty much every generation before us, war is one of those things. again, ask for a show of hands. how many people think the war is a good thing and have many people think that war should never be used as a policy? >> we are then obviously all conflicted. i think if you look back on previous generations, to think that we can't morally understand how honest, sincere people could believ
, under secretary norman went in and froze the the 1981 bill that became law, that the reagan tax cut we are talking about earlier so it was a practical handle. the neat thing that you recount again five years later it didn't make a difference. four or five years later by 1984 there were 40 other organizations doing knockoffs of what the mandate for leadership had been. >> when i interviewed the president of other think tanks in washington d.c. brookings and c s i s and kato, i said what difference has the heritage approach to research made? all the difference in the world. the brookings president said we now do what heritage first started so heritage really, and i say that in the book, change the think tank culture of washington d.c.. >> one of the neatest things that i can say among all of you, 25, 30 years ago when phil and i were just getting our feet wet at heritage there weren't 600 people in the united states who knew what a think tank was. 600,000 people have voluntarily supported us. that is incredible. incredible impact. >> glad you mentioned that because there is no other thin
rush. one came from massachusetts, from harvard and yale law school. so was an odd mix. one was a politician, businessman, double dealer, self-promoter, who became the first superintendent of yellowstone national park. the sent one, whose father had followed the gold rush, was a soldier, a humble cavalry lieutenant who is also a self-taught scientist, brilliant man, phenomenal writer, who wrote the first great account of the exploration of yellow stone in 1870 that was haled at the time by the leading scientist office the day as the greates writings sip lewis and clark, and the third was the harvard and yale law school bookish hype ocon dry yack scholar, who became like men in the west, driven by fear, for a of the others he walked from independence, iowa to the montana gold rush. acted the politician and future superintendent, and like a lot of white men who settled there, he became an exterminationist. i think about the conversation in the earlier panel about the problem for historians out presentism. how you impose the moral assumptions and values of the present on the re
and actually really happy to see how quickly law enforcement got on top of it and hold pulled it together so incredibly quickly and got the people apprehended them and they were captured in a matter of days. that actually made me feel so much more secure and so much better and i was really applauding the fbi and all the police that were working together and how everybody seemed to be reacting differently to those then 9/11. there was less feared and more rallying and they were not going to let them do this. on the other hand as my job i was watching the friends ask in the technology that they were using and i was fascinated. the infrared helicopters that they could watch the motions of the guy in the boat the fact that there was let in a sabha campus moving. i need to pick those things up for my writing and i know that sounds horrible but i'm listening as a human being and listening as a writer. i couldn't help the reality is that i thought it was fascinating and horrifying. >> having spent a number of years writing about a manhunt, i also found the tactics of this manhunt quite interesting.
led the negotiations for the reunification of east germany. he is proficient in economics and law and vlad holds a doctorate of law and is written a number of books most recently the future of modernization, what we can learn from the crisis. mr. minister we are delighted you are with us and we look forward to your remarks and then we will pepper you with questions. >> thank you very much. sorry for being late. today we are, our hearts and minds are with boston and i hope it will be over soon. i have to make remarks on the financial markets that are going well in europe as you all know. [laughter] i will be brief to have time for discussion and therefore i just want to say we all remember the crisis that started in the united states in 2008 and in 2008 we all agreed it will never happen again. we have to learn our lessons. the summit to london and pittsburgh and a two the g20 meeting today in boston. we have made a lot of progress in doing this since then. we agreed that the reason -- there are three reasons. too much -- too much liquidity in the financial markets and too few regu
that information, they will gather it whether or not you're aware of it. but all we're doing is permitting our law enforcement officers from having, you know, the tools to go after people who are getting guns illegally, buying them at gun shows and things like that. so one of the things we have to be careful about is that these inauthentic arguments sort of spread through the media, and they spread -- you know, one of the things i talk about in the book is that the fragmentation of media gives consumers more power than ever. you may not feel that way, but you have more power now than media consumers have ever had in history because you can choose where you're going to see something, when you're going to see something, and the technology exists to tabulate that. if you go to a web site, if you go to youtube, if you go to hulu, here or there, people will see that, and can they will know. ten years ago if you weren't in the nielsen family, nobody knew whether or not you were. watching television, and they didn't care. now there are a bunch of different ways for you to express your opinion about what'
of a bank account or something, you know. if you think unilaterally the dictator for a day passed one law, what would you do? that's definitely a major flaw in the republican thinking. they assume we're going to be dictator for one day and limit government by doing that. in fact we're dictators for life and government gets bigger. to get to the spirit of your question, i think if we could reverse or somewhat change the relationship between the federal government and the states, i think that is the most lasting thing to serve to limit government. the vision of competing multiple jurisdiction of preventing consolidation of power is valid and valid in this century as well. the senates go hat and hand in washington asking for federal money. >> hi, spencer with the "daily caller" you reference the mythical permanent majority of the republican party. of course they disappeared. now we see a vision the establishment fading way. tea party segment is rising. do you think that is a permanent influence on the modern republican party now? if so give that is a grassroots movement is there anything you
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14